I will not vote for Hillary Clinton!

[Gryphons Eyre]

There was a reason Molly Ivins said that. I have a few of my own but the huge elephant at the dinning room table is Iraq; the rhinoceros at the table is that she "triangulates" everything to the point of saying nothing on some occasions and plain gibberish on others.

I liked what the op ed piece in the "the nation" entitled Hillary's Hypocrisy put it.

How do you triangulate among death, hypocrisy and stupidity? Not at all logically, which is why Hillary Clinton's dissembling on Iraq has become a fatal embarrassment not only for her but for anyone who hopes she can provide progressive leadership for the nation. If she has still not found the courage to reverse course on this disastrous war, why assume that as President she would behave any differently?

"I do not think it is a smart strategy, either, for the President to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government," said Clinton last week at the "Take Back America" conference. "Nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests."

This is pure gibberish designed to sound reasonable.

...and on it goes. It has been enormously embarrassing for me to watch her posture and position herself to be sure nothing falls on her when it all falls to pieces; to show substance and integrity when there is none. Many have done this but she has the unmistakable aura of someone who has perfected the art. We need someone that knows what courage is. We need someone that would stand up for their convictions whether they felt it would cost them their precious career in politics or not. No profile in courage here!

I came out early against the Iraq war just like I have in my warning on Iran. It was clear to me far before thin invasion that information was being manipulated. It was clear to me that the plans for war with Iraq predated Bush gaining the White House. I would be ashamed if I had given this president authority to bankrupt this nation and commit war crimes on a massive scale but then thats just me. If being to afraid of being called unpatriotic or a traitor prevented Democratic congressmen from satisfying their oath of office then I quite simply have no use for any of them.

Be fair, be objective but for gods sakes Democrats demand accountability. It's way past due.

g

[Selatius]

1. Then you should join the Draft Gore campaign.

The only other person out there who would likely beat her in the primaries is Gore.

[DemKR]

2. Every..friggin...day...n/t

[Erika]

3. I love Gore

Go Al!

[bigluckyfeet]

4. Get Lost Hillary

Go Al!

[Apollo11]

5. Gore Obama 2008

Those of us who like Al Gore sometimes say that he was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.

It's true he advised caution, and called for finishing the fight agains Al Quaida in Afghanistan.

But he supported the first Gulf War and believed that Saddam was a threat to Iraq's neighbors.

The fact is we don't know for sure how Al Gore would have voted on the IWR passed by Congress.

We do know what he said in a speech on September 23, 2002.

Here is an extract from Al Gore's speech to the Commonwealth Club on September 23, 2002. For a fuller picture of his position, I recommend reading the whole speech (following the link below).

"The resolution that the president has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authority it grants and needs to be narrowed severely. The president should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and, therefore, a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the president to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open.

"In any event, the president should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the president will probably still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration's thinking is regarding the aftermath of a U.S. attack for the purpose of regime change. I believe that the congressional resolution should also make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law, not requiring any formal new doctrine of preemption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its great gravity."

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

We also know that Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean on December 9, 2003, citing Dean's position on Iraq.

from CNN.com - December 10, 2003

Al Gore endorses Howard Dean

Gore also praised Dean's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The former vice president called the Iraq war a "catastrophic mistake" by the Bush administration, a move that leaves the United States less effective in the nation's battle against terrorism. He said the United States is now in a "quagmire" in Iraq.

"He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war," Gore said. "And he had the insight and the courage to say and do the right thing. And that's important because those judgments -- that basic common sense -- is what you want in a president."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/

So yes - support Al Gore if you believe he is the best person for the job.

But not if you are looking for the "most left" or "most dovish" candidate.

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Read Al's blog: http://blog.algore.com

Help Al Gore lobby Congress: www.algore.com/cards.html

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Who said you had to?

--p!

[pampango]

7. If you are talking about the primaries, more power to you.

I personally think Obama is best right now, but I keep an open mind. I don't have to make a final decision for many months.

If you are talking about the general election, I'll see if Ralph ("There is no difference between Hillary and Rudy McRomney") is running again. Or maybe there will be a new "Ralph" this time around whom you can vote for and preserve the purity of your positions. Nothing bad could come from that could it?

[PhilipShore]

8. Hillary: The Manchurian Candidate

[Carolina]

9. I totally agree

There should be no equivocation about this disastrous war. I cringe when I hear Hilary trying to weasel her way out of her culpability on it because she voted for it by voting to give the moron-in-chief such awesome authority.

How she -- such an allegedly smart lawyer -- could cede that sort of power to the likes of Bush raises enough questions about her judgment. But trying to have it both ways now is absurd.

Geffen is right. She is polarizing (just look on this board!!!). Moreover, she is no Bill. He had smarts, charisma and timing. He could walk in a room and charm his opponents, something even Newt and, his then aide, Tony Blankley admitted.

Hilary can't. Period

[Vinca]

10. If she's the nominee, I'll hold my nose and pull the lever.

Nothing will make me vote for a third party candidate who cannot win at the expense of having Republicans retain control of the White House. The only thing worse than Hillary is Duncan or Sam or Rudy or McCain. Imagine President Sam Brownback. Abortion rights will last about 10 seconds. That said, I'm rooting for Obama, but will support a Gore/Obama ticket if Gore gets in. Edwards, sadly, lost me with his universal health insurance plan.

[Forkboy]

12. I never vote AGAINST someone again

I've been doing that all my life,and I'm tired of it.I'm voting FOR someone from now on.And I wish that's what everyone did.

Kerry was the last ham sandwich I'm voting for.I'll vote for who I like regardless of their chance to win.I'm tired of feeling like my votes were hostages.

Hillary is the only one I can guarantee I will not vote for under any circumstance.I could easily vote for Kucinich and Gore.After that it gets a little fuzzy :)

[Apollo11]

17. Right now you have a pretty wide choice

If you want to spend the next 11 months working every day for Kuchinic ... "knock yourself out"

But when it comes to the general, I think most of us here would encourage you to support the nominee.

As it says in the DU rules: "Members are expected to support Democratic candidates for political office."

What do you call people who don't respect the primary process and refuse to support the nominee?

Up in Connecticut they got a name for that kind of person: J-O-E L-I-E-B-E-R-M-A-N

[Forkboy]

25. I know the rules,and I won't advocate that anyone else vote like I might

That's the best I can offer.If they want to ban me that's the price I'll pay for following my heart and head this time :shrug:

[Clark2008]

34. Well, I won't vote for that sleazy John Edwards (I have MANY

reasons, but it comes down to not trusting the fella).

However, if he's the nominee, I'll just take a long break from the board... until he loses (and he would).

[SaveElmer]

11. Note to Hillary...Gryphons Eyre will not be voting for you...get out now...

:rofl:

[LWolf]

13. Will you be rolling and laughing

when Democrats lose a general election because too many voters didn't like the corporate candidate selected for them by corporate media, I wonder?

:eyes:

It should no longer surprise me, though. Derision has been the standard, perhaps the only dlcer response to opposition all along, at least here on DU. Nothing of substance to say, nothing substantive to oppose with, but still need to get a word in? Just <snicker,> deride, and ridicule.

Maybe those wascally wabbits won't figure out how impotent that particular weapon is.

[SaveElmer]

14. Sometimes..

You just gotta fight fire with fire

And btw: If Hillary is the nomination she will win the general..easily...feel free to bookmark this thread!

Oh...and I am not a member of the DLC...just FYI

[Forkboy]

15. "I am not a member of the DLC"

You should be.You got the party line down good enough.

[SaveElmer]

16. Well thanks...

I'll take that as a compliment! Course like any member of any organization...I certainly do not agree with everything they say...but in general I think the DLC strategy is the best way to achieve a more lasting and permanent majority!

[skipos]

20. Come on, she will win "easily?"

I know that we can't base everything on polls this far out, but when it looks like PA and NJ, who know (HRC AND Dame Rudy well) prefer Dame Rudy for president, HRC's election would be far from easy.

[SaveElmer]

23. Bookmark this thread...

If Hillary is the nominee she will win a minimum of 297 electoral votes...possibly more depending on who the Republican nominee is...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Posted in wrong place, delete.

N.T.

[LWolf]

37. I guess you don't have to be a member

to work to further their agenda, or to parrot their talking points.

Win easily? I have met exactly zero people in real life that would vote for Hillary. Real life gives me access to a very eclectic, politically diverse group of people, and I've never heard a single one of them express any confidence in Hillary. My conversations with people across the country on other boards (professional and hobby-related) reflect the same. There's a handful of Hillary supporters on DU, but I haven't found any ANYWHERE else. She is a shoo-in for the Democrat most likely to be a divider, in my opinion.

[SaveElmer]

39. Member of what?

And I see significant enthusiasm where I live for a Hillary candidacy. I live in a purple/blue area of a red state am quite active in local Democratic politics...

I find it ironic that folks poo poo polls showing Hillary leading or even competitive, and replace their own personal experience as a more reliable indicator...

In any case I am not the only one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3123455&mesg_id=3123455

[Imperialism Inc.]

18. It's the damn pandering that ticks me off.

I will say I have noticed that her people (both on DU and elsewhere) have at least been making an effort to reach out to progressives. That is what she is going to have to do. She can't take us for granted. Kerry had a little more leeway in that department but not Mrs. Clinton. She has pandered to the middle and the right so much that she will have to make an effort to keep the left/progressives behind her. In fact I think that is why she is such a poor choice for the nomination. If she gets the nomination there is a very real chance that people like myself will just leave the ballot blank. It is up to her to earn my vote and I don't think it is a good idea to nominate someone who may lose significant portions of the base.

[mtnsnake]

19. There isn't one of them who doesn't pander. Right now they're all pandering to Bush

because they're not strong enough to stand up to his surge by cutting off the funds for it.

There is no need to single Hillary out for something they're all guilty of doing...pandering. I haven't seen a single elected Democratic politician who hasn't pandered in ordered to get themselves elected. It's just much easier to be selectively critical when Hillary is the brunt of so much hatred here.

[PhilipShore]

24. Excellent point

There is no need to single Hillary out for something they're all guilty of doing...pandering. I haven't seen a single elected Democratic politician who hasn't pandered in ordered to get themselves elected. It's just much easier to be selectively critical when Hillary is the brunt of so much hatred here.

I can't speak for everyone here; but I know for myself, I am actually hoping that the election campaign process will make the politicians (such as Hillary) more accountable, and sensitive to the needs and rights of the people.

For years she has been sheltered form the storms of political reality, as has been most of our current politicians; and with the Abramoff and Libby scandals the "dark side" of the psyche of the average politician is being unmasked.

The question I have is, will we ever see the true Hillary?

[Imperialism Inc.]

27. I single her out because she is the worst of them.

Yes. All politicians pander to groups. Hilliary does it the most of any currently in the race (except perhaps for McCain but I'm not at all interested in Republicans because I won't be voting for one)and has been doing it for quite a while now.

[SaveElmer]

30. I know of no more dramatic pander than Dennis Kucinich...

Shifting from strict anti-choice, ant-stem cell research, pro flag desecration amendment positions to pro-choice, pro-stem cell anti flag desecration amendment....right before running for President.

[Tellurian]

22. Pandering is the most overused word in the political spectrum..

Hillary is a little left of center and there she will stay.

You can't expect a presidential candidate to favor one group over another.
Well, except for Kucinich and the results of his position in electability is obvious.

The top three candidates basically are standing in the center. So, why single Hillary out?

[mtnsnake]

21. Selective criticism. Nobody else is doing anything to stop the war either

...not her or anyone else. They're all going belly up, now that they're in power.

[Forkboy]

26. Kucinich is

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

28. There's roughly 300 million Americans.

Minus people Constitutionally prohibited by age we'll eventually whittle that number down to about 50 or 60 folks who are possible next-residents of the White House.

But many of those 50-60 are longshots. John Danforth is "presidential," and enjoys some demographic appeal as a conservative/moderate Republican, so he'd be among the longshots, but the shot is truly long. Not really a reasonable chance to become the president. Christopher Dodd. Michael Bloomberg.

Of the 50 or so on that list, some are nutbags, or near-nutbags, and can likely be statistically eliminated. Tom Tancredo is not going to be our next president, for example.

Pretty soon you have a list of maybe a dozen people. We know their names. Both major parties have a handful in the mix.

One of them will be our next president.

Senator Clinton is one of those dozen or so people.

[Arugula Latte]

29. The more I see of her, the less enthused I become.

And I wasn't enthused to begin with ...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. I hope you like the Republican you help elect, then.

If you really don't believe that Hillary Clinton wouldn't make a massively better president than any of the possible Republican candidates, then by all means don't vote for her.

I think you're clearly wrong, however.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gryphons Eyre]

33. Talking points matter, cheap shots take a walk

I do not hate Hillary Clinton; it is more of her capacity to make herself irrelevant than anything else that disqualifies her for being President.

Why have a majority in congress if we are so concerned about pleasing everyone and offending no one that we do nothing? The whole point to discussion on this board and hopefully the nation at large is to fix a crippled political system that is clearly not working as the founders intended. We need to talk about the policies that are good for America and not an endless procession of why they will never happen. They would happen if democracy worked like it should.

Replies here suggest no one is doing anything about the war. Excuse me? I am, many here are. I know that is not what was being referred to but it is an essential part of how things work. People in this nation must come to understand everything is up for grabs here. They can either choose to do something to promote public awareness or wait until after the fact when disaster has left us with no other option; thats all there is. Secondly, there are candidates that have been outspoken against the war from the beginning so that one size fits all really isn't accurate is it.

Yes Hillary Clinton should be concerned that I openly challenge her candidacy along with all those like minded individuals and those that we can influence. We call it netroots now and we are growing in numbers and influence.

This thread is about challenging the status quo. If the facts are political dynasty and class warfare has robbed us of a system of representation that works, which many here would agree is the problem, then that is the most critical problem that must be address.

I am convinced we are at a crossroads. We can either vote for, support, challenge, hold candidates accountable for what they do or concede the end of democracy in America; we will not have both. This will not happen with business as usual. This will not happen without growing resolve that something can and must be done to increase public awareness to dangers gathering over this nation.

My view, a vote for Hillary is a vote for complacency. A vote for change in name only and a steady march to oblivion for democracy in this nation.

g

[Learn2Swim]

36. trust me you're not alone

I will not vote for Hillary. If she is the nominee, 3rd party here I come!

[ShortnFiery]

38. Yes, 100% with you.

:hi: